Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Each gender can give the opposite gender a different perspective on things which may or may not be helpful, but insisting on a path that is wrong for that individual is damaging - no matter how good the intentions were.

100% agree. And this is especially true in men speaking to women logically about women. I invite any of you to learn the hard way and try to make a difference here, but it WILL NOT happen. Field Tested. Whatever the reason, psychological, biological whatever it doesn't matter...men think and act differently than women, period. This woman philosophy isn't actually so cutting edge, many men have known this for a long time.

But it will always be "wrong" from a woman's perspective. What was that Nietzsche quote, "About women one should only talk to men."

For example, I liked Sue's point that women essentially don't develop beyond the toddler stage, that they retain the narcissism, selfishness, living in the moment, spit-the-dummy mindset that toddlers generally have when they are three years old. I've never heard Sue say that before, nor have I heard anyone else talk about it like that.

FYI, Simone de Beauvoir was on about this over 50 years ago in The Second Sex: the childishness/tantrums/narcissism/immaturity/vanity/fluttering, etc. and plenty more. She also advocated that women never marry nor have children and that this was more or less the only hope for her to to reach the fullest possible subjecthood (or as you people put it, "ego." And no, she doesn't go further than that into the destruction of same.) Beauvoir's main point about the female is the species burden placed upon her: that both by nature and condition, she's given all the grunt work of carrying and caring for human bodies like livestock. She herself is considered the same kind of object in a world of subjects (men) - mere vehicle for breeding inspiration; less-than human.

Sue can claim to have reached these "insights" on her own, but one cannot claim her as the first. Come to think of it, I'm curious that the hard-ass Beauvoir is not at least an also-ran in your pantheon of thinkers on this subject. You'd probably like most everything about her attack on men and women - including the idea of blame . . . .

skipair wrote:this is especially true in men speaking to women logically about women.

I certainly did not say that only men can be logical.

skipair wrote:But it will always be "wrong" from a woman's perspective. What was that Nietzsche quote, "About women one should only talk to men."

Huh?

skipair wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Each gender can give the opposite gender a different perspective on things which may or may not be helpful, but insisting on a path that is wrong for that individual is damaging - no matter how good the intentions were.

100% agree.

How can you 100% agree that the opposite gender can give a different perspective which may or may not be helpful, then say that it will always be wrong from a woman's perspective, and quote Neitzsche about not even talking to women about women?

Skipair, I saw Elizabeth slip those boxers on but she acted like she hoped no one else would notice.

I know it's trite but it's true, women "complement" men and look ridiculous trying to be like men. We indulge them in that endeavor because frankly they make good wage slaves and the technology that men have provided allows them to follow their wage slave dreams. I suspect most men secretly hope that this will in part or wholly allow them to escape wage slave hell and maybe that can serve a post feminist goal. The problem is what adjustments we need to make legally and socially to accommodate this change while increasing our "quality of life". Following the feminist proscription of women as men legally while keeping their traditional cultural protections that are codified in law is resulting in what Rich called a "New Aristocracy", ie a legally enforced superiority.

Here are my suggestions for this accommodation. Eliminate "mandated sexual equality". Get the government out of our sex relations with the same vigor that conservatives want them out of our economic relations. Our families are now being teared apart mostly by women. They are initiating divorce at a 70% rate and it correlates with increased economic independence. The trouble is the divorce and custody laws are based on a by gone era of the male's earning power. With women now making more money than men and with them owning 55% of the wealth and it climbing fast, we need a new legal paradigm in custody and divorce to balance things better and encourage stable families. My suggestion is assumption of father's custody to replace our present assumption of mother's custody. This will make women think twice before filing for divorce and if they do, they will get their just deserts...visitation with the kids and non custodial parenthood.

Other solutions I have suggested are converting the welfare system into a "manfare" system that guarantees a stipend to men to do with whatever they want. This would be funded by a higher income tax on women. The money could be used to supplement family income or bankroll learning how to be Buddha or Jesus thereby encouraging a spiritual life for men that will also buttress our helping professions.

Men also need to organize politically for male specific interests. It's ridiculous having this huge exclusive and ideologically driven female advocacy and none for men. That is why things are so unfair to men and why there is now huge injustices to them and it's increasing exponentially as time goes on. The drug laws have to go and many other criminal justice reforms are long overdue.

Guys, you'll have to excuse Elizabeth's behavior she's been wearing my boxers again!!....elizabeth give back my boxers please and put the thong back on like a good little baby girl........Skipair

That type of humor is in poor taste. The feminine/masculine psychology model does not support attacking particular women because they are women. You should still hold the highest respect for women, and not regress into sexual master/slave humor, but instead attack and criticize their reasoning where faults can be found.

As men, we need to move beyond speaking to women as if they are inferior objects that should be treated as slaves for our own pleasure. That sort of humor needs to be transcended in favor of more subtle types of humor.

skipair wrote:Guys, you'll have to excuse Elizabeth's behavior she's been wearing my boxers again!!....elizabeth give back my boxers please and put the thong back on like a good little baby girl........Skipair

I hate to state the obvious here, but you need to define what a "real man" is to answer those questions. You're free to define it as you see fit, of course. My view is somewhat cursorily summed up in an editorial from Genius News.

The ManKind ProjectÂ® offers trainings which support men in developing lives of integrity, accountability, and connection to feeling. Our trainings challenge men to develop their abilities as leaders, partners, fathers, and elders in order to offer their deepest gifts in service to the world.

The New Warrior Training AdventureTM is about taking a look at our lives as men - how they work and how they don't work. Here a man learns how to be fully accountable for his actions and their consequences; how to begin integrating the dark and soulful qualities of his masculine nature; how to stand up and take full responsibility for his life. He learns to find courage in the face of his deepest fears, and to understand the he has the opportunity to live a life of integrity and congruence. He learns to transcend the momentum of toxic masculinity, finding within himself the sacred masculine energy that is capable of discernment and protection that seeds life with passion, zeal, and creativity. He learns to step forward as a man without apologizing for who he is, stewarding that energy with an open heart and compassionate mindfulness.

A mature man is one who knows himself well enough to understand why he is here and what he is committed to. A man spends his energy on what he values. We have been conditioned to value things outside us. Sooner or later, the material life gives way to the interior life, and we have only one place left to go to discover the real richness of our lives - inside our own hearts and souls.

Many men have been taught to value thinking and to distrust feelings. They have been desensitized, taught to endure pain without complaint, and told that it is an honor to sacrifice our bodies for society. As a result, many men suffer from isolation and are prone to addictions and to acting out their feelings in dysfunctional ways. Many are afraid of intimacy, both with men and with women. They hide behind masks that are brittle and in need of repair.

Many men are sad, lonely, frightened, angry, and ashamed, and don't even know it. And with the loss of their feelings, they also lose what is most precious to them: Their ability to value their world and to hold life dear.

Other men know their feelings perhaps too well. They have learned to indulge in their feelings and use them to manipulate others, often the ones they love most. They lack the ability to stand in their own authenticity. Lost in their feelings, they too lose what is most precious to them: Their ability to be trusted and loved.

There is another way. On the New Warrior Training AdventureTM men re-discover their feelings with their feet on the ground. They begin to learn to clarify what they're feeling and to express those feelings directly and authentically. They begin to learn to balance the depth of the heart with the wisdom of the mind.

We discover a man who can be open and vulnerable, grounded and powerful. We discover how to live in the paradox of being tender and fierce, compassionate and wild. We learn the meaning of real warriorship.

The ManKind ProjectÂ® offers trainings which support men in developing lives of integrity, accountability, and connection to feeling. Our trainings challenge men to develop their abilities as leaders, partners, fathers, and elders in order to offer their deepest gifts in service to the world.

autism wrote:I know it's trite but it's true, women "complement" men and look ridiculous trying to be like men.

Personally I think the average man looks pretty ridiculous so if the average woman is attempting to be like him, well, you do the math. But I do not believe women "complement" men, and I certainly do not espouse or would consider supporting an ideology that says they should. This is one of the most significant problems we have: each sex defining and measuring their worth and reality against the other. I mean, what the? Men and women complement each other in the basic sense of procreative biology, but beyond that it's all just social and psychological conditioning from which I think we should strive to free ourselves - or at least gain sufficient understanding such that we know in what ways we can, or might want to. And remember for women to complement men, men must complement women. This seems terribly limiting for individuals of either gender.

Complement as in provide balance? Provide what the other is missing? In terms of society, this is very necessary. Individually, of course, balance must be internal. Unless you don't think you need to balance...in which case you must have already rebalanced completely (if possible) or you don't believe you ever needed to rebalance.

Most men and most women are destined only to continue to be of the ordinary animal variety, and their offspring the same. In that realm the complementary qualities are obvious and even useful. The few who have potential to transcend this ordinary plane of existence must adopt a different set of values to do so.

Outside a romantic relationship is a different matter somewhat, but inside a (healthy) romantic relationship women do compliment men. A woman feels pleasure to find her place within her man's world. What is that other Nietzsche quote, "The happiness of a man is: I will. The happiness of a woman is: he wills."

It is ok to reject romance from your life, but to reject that this remains the fundamental dynamic between a man and woman cannot be done accurately. Treating her as another man will get you nowhere (and is in fact disrespectful to her (she doesn't understand wtf you're talking about), and disrespectful to yourself for not seeing the bigger picture). But don't take my word for it...try it!

Elizabeth,pardon my unconventional method to connect with you on a more energetic level.Yesterday was intensely hot! It felt so fucking good to come inside so every cell in my body was more tranquil and balanced..I think its extremely exciting to discover different positions of communicating that allows us to really feel that growth we crave deep inside.As we fully surrender to the depth of those deepest feelings we come together in our discovery of lifes passion and secret fascinations......Looking forward...Skipair

"The personal is political" has been one sided in sexual terms overtly for 40 years and covertly for many more. You are right Skipair to make a distinction of "complementarity" between the personal and political or collective. Men have no collective voice. As for the personal, those dynamics will remain the same no matter what is happening politically or collectively so that when one sex exceeds in power, as women do now in the West, it serves a smaller group of elite men who then rule in the name of all other men by using the increasing power of women. The problem for "all other men" is that it is not in their nature to organize or advocate the way we see in feminism. They by nature tend to defer to the alpha ("elite") men thereby making this variety of ruling a lock for the elite. That's why this present situation is so obviously ridiculous and unjust for men yet they seem to be able to do nothing about it.

I suspect the patriarchal religions emerged just for this reason. That's why the feminists see opposing or coopting them as their first line of defense. They long ago, during First Wave Feminism, coopted them yet still push hard using the marxists on the Left to oppose them. In order to make any progress for men or anyone else, the Left has to recreate itself. A new kind of populism or progressivism needs to emerge. Many historians see this but like most others don't have a clue how it will happen. The marxists and feminists are now essentially a sell out to the Right and need to be ejected or "re-educated" <smile>. They've worked for so long together with the Right they now look very much alike.

As for the personal and spiritual importance of sexual complementarity, that's where God ("patriarchal religions") enters the picture. He enters at moments of crisis just like this. Anyone who has had children knows what I mean on a micro level vis a vis God in this respect. We are all God's children.

divine focus wrote:Individually, of course, balance must be internal. Unless you don't think you need to balance...in which case you must have already rebalanced completely (if possible) or you don't believe you ever needed to rebalance.

Actually, I take this back. Internally, it's not so much a balance as it is a two-part self-syncing. The masculine and feminine need to become whole in themselves, the masculine being control/direction and the feminine judgment/acceptance.

The masculine seems to be the easier to self-sync. When its main focus is the self, it becomes directing instead of controlling. It doesn't need to align with any ideas or anything "outside," abstracted (such as culture or other people). It simply acts or doesn't act, in the best interest of self. Nothing is feared, nothing is worried about; concerns are dealt with immediately or not seen as concerns.

The feminine is tougher. To self-sync, it needs to change how it sees the self. Is the self absolute, or is it part of the infinite (the part itself possibly infinite). In self-syncing, the feminine sees the self as infinite, and so not ever fully known. It sees that to know absolutely would be to limit the infinite. Judgment of an infinite self could never be absolute, so the feminine withholds judgment. It accepts what it judges to be good for the self without judging the self or anything "outside." In self-syncing the feminine, the self does away with pride and guilt, credit and blame.

LetÂ´s try the experiment to have some concrete stuff in this thread, shall we?

The ideas below come from a chapter on Femininity/masculinity by Jan E. Stets and Peter J. Burke, Department of Sociology, Washington State University. I think they could add some interesting angles to the discussion in three particular points. The arguments are from the chapter cited, the emphasis is mine.

First, I see in the thread a generalized agreement on considering masculinity and femininity as innate, even genetic, human characteristics. I believe that the idea is unsubstantiated, and I find the following argument quite compelling in supporting the alternative view:

We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions. Anthropologist Margaret Mead addressed the issue of differences in temperament for males and females in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935). This early study led to the conclusion that there are no necessary differences in traits or temperaments between the sexes. Observed differences in temperament between men and women were not a function of their biological differences. Rather, they resulted from differences in socialization and the cultural expectations held for each sex.One is led to this conclusion because the three societies studied by Mead showed patterns of temperament which were quite varied compared with our own. Among the Arapesh, both males and females displayed what we would consider a "feminine" temperament (passive, cooperative and expressive). Among the Mundugamor, both males and females displayed what we would consider a "masculine" temperament (active, competitive and instrumental). Finally, among the Tchambuli, men and women displayed temperaments that were different from each other, but opposite to our own pattern. In that society, men were emotional, and expressive while women were active and instrumental.

Second, the thread (and the Woman concept in general) tends to describe individuals as either masculine or feminine, in a "full vs empty" fashion, i.e. someone is 80% masculine therefore is 20% feminine. I believe thatÂ´s simplistic and misleading, and that is pretty much equivalent to say that someone is 80% athletic therefore 20% "good-at-chess".Is not a case of p + q = 1, masculinity and femininity are not the same thing but going in opposite directions, A and non-A, etc.

(Not sure if this concept of masculinity + femininity =100% has anything to do with the related concept that "man and woman complement each other", which is also pretty much vacuous wishful thinking, IMHO).

These would be the arguments for that:

With separate measures of masculinity and femininity, it is possible to ask about the relationship between the measure of masculinity and the measure of femininity. When this relationship is examined, it is found that the two scales are not strongly negatively related as would be expected if masculinity were the opposite of femininity. Instead, the two ratings are relatively unrelated; knowing oneâ€™s score on one scale does not predict the score on the other scale. People have all combinations of scores. Androgyny is indicated by a small difference between masculinity and femininity scores, representing balanced levels of these two characteristics. The other classifications are masculine (high M and low F scores), feminine (high F and low M scores), and undifferentiated (low F and low M scores).

One of the standarized inventories that sociologists/psychologists have come up with to measure masculinity and femininity on separate, independent dimensions is the the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). This is a 24 question, 5 point-scale test that allows to measure Masculinity, Femininity and Androgyny ("Masculinity-Femininity"), using characteristics that men are generally seen possessing more than women and viceversa. More about the test is here.

(I am going to try to format it as an interactive web-based test, so GF members could play with it).

And finally, the third point I want to address in the context of this thread and the Woman concept in general is about the notable importance that is ascribed to gender in relation to something else, i.e. wisdom. I think that this could (not that it is, just that it could) be the result of an obsession with gender differences, seeing them as the cause of everything, in the same way that if one were to have an obsession with zodiac signs, one would probably be ascribing a big importance to have been born during certain times of the year for being able to ever become a sage. Anyway, this is what psychologists/sociologists have to say on the matter:

(...) the salience of gender identity across individuals, groups, and even cultures. Salience refers to the probability that a particular identity will be invoked in a situation. This will vary by situation, but it also varies across individuals. For some, gender is not very relevant, and for others gender is almost always relevant. This returns us to Bemâ€™s notion of gender schematization or the tendency to see the world in gendered terms. What makes gender identity more or less salient for people, and what are the consequences of that?(...) we know very little about subcultural, cultural, and cross-cultural differences in the meanings that are attached to femininity and masculinity. Most of what we know concerns western cultures, yet as Margaret Mead discovered long ago, these patterns are not universal. We need to investigate the variation in the meanings of being masculine and feminine. Such studies may help us understand a society's division of labor, differential power and status structure, in general, how society's privileges and responsibilities are allocated. To modify the social system may mean first modifying individual beliefs about masculinity and femininity.

To me, masculinity is a character trait (based in psychology or biology doesn't matter) that confronts and overcomes resistance in whatever form it takes. It is a force that dominates and penetrates and finds joy in bringing things into submission. Femininity is a creative character trait that avoids resistance and responsibility. It is a force that seeks the structure it lacks in order to find joy in submitting to it.

In my observation, everyone has both traits in varying degrees, and the degree to which an individual has either is negotiable to some extent, either by acts of will or by the environment. But there does seem to be validity in people posessing either a masculine or feminine "core", and yes, the majority of women have a feminine core, and the majority of men a masculine core. This is not to say that modern "feminist" culture has not pushed masculine men to act more sensitive and submissive, or feminine women to be more confronting and dominant. But in doing so people are being denied the support to act on their true core, and the result is poor ethics from men, and confusion and depression in both sexes.

We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions.

I think it's much more likely that there's a combination of genetic and social/cultural conditions.

Anthropologist Margaret Mead addressed the issue of differences in temperament for males and females in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935). This early study led to the conclusion that there are no necessary differences in traits or temperaments between the sexes.

It may be possible for cultural conditions to outweigh the force of genetic conditions.

One is led to this conclusion because the three societies studied by Mead showed patterns of temperament which were quite varied compared with our own. Among the Arapesh, both males and females displayed what we would consider a "feminine" temperament (passive, cooperative and expressive). Among the Mundugamor, both males and females displayed what we would consider a "masculine" temperament (active, competitive and instrumental). Finally, among the Tchambuli, men and women displayed temperaments that were different from each other, but opposite to our own pattern. In that society, men were emotional, and expressive while women were active and instrumental.

Here we are trusting Mead's personal judgements on whether the people are behaving in a masculine or feminine way. Her judgements may be mistaken due to her personal biases. Also, in these tribes it may be that people behave differently in private than they do in public. And they may think differently underneath than they display on the outside. I don't know.

Who are the innovators, the independent thinkers and geniuses, the deep and rational thinkers in these tribes, women? Who are the tribal chiefs who make all the important decisions? Who are the clearest-thinking (from a rational perspective)? Who are the sexual aggressors? That's what we need to know.

Second, the thread (and the Woman concept in general) tends to describe individuals as either masculine or feminine, in a "full vs empty" fashion, i.e. someone is 80% masculine therefore is 20% feminine.

The idea is that masculinity equates with consciousness, so it follows that whatever part of a person is not masculine (conscious) is unconscious.

Consciousness is attracted to unconsciousness because unconsciousness is a holiday to consciousness.

And unconsciousness is attracted to consciousness because it provides form, value, direction, and purpose.

This objection doesn't work and the equation is not in any way inconsistent with Woman because the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of femininity of their minds (as well as the propensity for them to seek refuse in that dimension).

Men and women both have some masculine in them and some feminine in them. By the definitions we use here this is the same thing as saying Men and women both have some consciousness in them and some unconsciousness in them. The reason why its not the other way around, and we don't equate the word "feminity" with "consciousness", even though there are plenty of women like yourself that do use consciousness, is that it just so happens that most of the time, men are more aware of cause and effect than women.

Now, this is a broad statement, and I believe there are some situations where this doesn't apply. For instance in relationships I believe women to be more aware than men about the "internal workings" if you will, of the relationship. How many times have you thought to yourself how silly guys can be when they go after women?!

But this is a forum that focuses purely on logical implications, not the emotional implications in which women absolutely have the upper hand. In the logical realm, even though you actually display a very high degree of understanding compared to most women, which is very impressive, for the most part I think we can agree that men are usually more cold and calculating than women. And it is simply this notion that we make the distinction.

Dan Rowden wrote:the reasons for most men's lack of consciousness is the level of femininity of their minds

circular argument

I'm sorry, what's circular about it? Biological males and females are unconscious to the degree that the feminine dimension of mind dominates. This will vary in individuals of both sexes but I hold that one can make perfectly reasonable generalisations about the sexes based on this "formula".